Strategic Uses of Social Technology: A SIDE look at computer-mediated interaction

Introduction The new communications technologies are developing at such a fast pace that it is difficult for research and theorizing to keep up. Although exploring the range of applications and instantiations of the latest forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC), texting, and video-based phone systems provides many useful insights, research and theorizing that lag behind the technological developments will run the risk of being phenomenon- and even technology-driven, making it difficult to anticipate new uses and consequences. In this chapter we therefore adopt a theory-focused approach to make some sense of the effects of the new technologies (as Kurt Lewin said, there is nothing so practical as a good theory), and a primarily experimental methodology to test this. We focus on a theoretical framework that we have developed over a number of years to gain insights into the effects of CMC in social and organizational settings: the SIDE model. We have found this model useful in helping to correct a tendency, in the literature on CMC in particular, to underestimate the role of social influences on and within these technologies, and an equal (and perhaps opposite) tendency to overestimate their capacity to counteract the impact of status and power. In particular, we think this theoretical model has been useful in helping us to understand (and predict) some of the more counterintuitive findings of behavior found using computer-mediated communication. The idea that people actually conform when isolated from and anonymous to their group is a good example of such an effect explained by the SIDE model. Gender, which is a key focus in the present chapter, also forms an interesting case study in this respect. Much theorizing and research has proposed that women might become more assertive and less submissive when liberated by the anonymity of CMC. Our research suggests that this is not necessarily the case. The SIDE model helps to explicate when and why the technology helps disempowered groups to transcend inequalities of status and power, and when it leaves them more vulnerable to the power divide. Of course, people are not just passively exposed to the effects of technologies such as CMC – a key argument is that they provide strategic opportunities for people to “manage” their identities contra “less mediated” face-to-face communication. So, for example, when women are given the chance to conceal or deceive their gender identity, do they do this, and if so, with what effect? And are these strategies and effects similar for other groups and categories? After outlining our model and providing some evidence of empirical support, we concentrate on the “gender divide” as one important test case, in which the social and power dimensions of these communications technologies in particular can be examined in some detail. Finally, we consider some of the implications of these findings for gender, as well as relations between groups divided by power and status in general.

[1]  R. Thomson,et al.  Predicting gender from electronic discourse. , 2001, The British journal of social psychology.

[2]  T. Postmes,et al.  Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. , 1998 .

[3]  T. Postmes,et al.  Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Effects of Anonymity on Group Behavior , 2001 .

[4]  L. Festinger,et al.  Some consequences of de-individuation in a group , 1952 .

[5]  Russell Spears,et al.  Visibility and anonymity effects on attraction and group cohesiveness , 2007 .

[6]  T. Postmes,et al.  Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? , 1998 .

[7]  R. Spears,et al.  De‐individuation and group polarization in computer‐mediated communication , 1990 .

[8]  Mark Levine,et al.  Deindividuation, power relations between groups and the expression of social identity: The effects of visibility to the out‐group , 1994 .

[9]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[10]  R. Spears,et al.  Knowing Me, Knowing You: Anonymity Effects on Social Identity Processes within Groups , 2001 .

[11]  O. Gandy The Panoptic Sort: A Political Economy of Personal Information. Critical Studies in Communication and in the Cultural Industries. , 1993 .

[12]  Russell Spears,et al.  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION, DEINDIVIDUATION AND GROUP DECISION-MAKING , 1991 .

[13]  Russell Spears,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication, De-Individuation and Group Decision-Making , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[14]  T. Postmes,et al.  A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena , 1995 .

[15]  Mark Levine,et al.  On the consequences of deindividuation manipulations for the strategic communication of self: Identifiability and the presentation of social identity. , 1994 .

[16]  M. Hogg,et al.  Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. , 1989 .

[17]  T. Postmes,et al.  Social Movement Participation in the Digital Age , 2002 .

[18]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[19]  T. Postmes,et al.  Individuality and social influence in groups: inductive and deductive routes to group identity. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  Alison Cole,et al.  The Internet Gender Gap Among College Students: Forgotten But Not Gone? , 2000, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[21]  P. Zimbardo The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. , 1969 .

[22]  Tom Postmes,et al.  When are net effects gross products? The power of influence and the influence of power in computer-mediated communication. , 2002 .

[23]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[24]  R. Spears,et al.  Panacea or Panopticon? , 1994 .

[25]  D. Haraway A manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s , 1987 .

[26]  M. Lea,et al.  Rationalist assumptions in cross-media comparisons of computer-mediated communication. , 1991 .

[27]  T. Postmes,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication as a Channel for Social Resistance , 2002 .

[28]  T. Postmes,et al.  Behavior Online: Does Anonymous Computer Communication Reduce Gender Inequality? , 2002 .

[29]  S. Turkle Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet , 1997 .

[30]  G. L. Bon,et al.  Scientific Literature: The Crowd. A Study of the Popular Mind , 1897 .

[31]  Tom Postmes,et al.  Computer-mediated communication and social identity , 2007 .

[32]  J. Turner,et al.  The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence , 1986 .

[33]  T. T. Postmes,et al.  A SIDE View of Social Influence , 2001 .

[34]  T. K. Srull,et al.  The Role of Category Accessibility in the Interpretation of Information About Persons: Some Determinants and Implications , 1979 .

[35]  Tom Postmes,et al.  Cues to Identity in Online Dyads: Effects of Interpersonal Versus Intragroup Perceptions on Performance , 2008 .

[36]  T. Postmes,et al.  Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization , 2002 .

[37]  Barbara Petrongolo,et al.  Unequal Pay or Unequal Employment? A Cross‐Country Analysis of Gender Gaps , 2006, Journal of Labor Economics.

[38]  R. Spears,et al.  Social influence and the influence of the 'social' in computer-mediated communication. , 1992 .

[39]  H. Tajfel,et al.  The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. , 2004 .

[40]  Lynn Smith-Lovin,et al.  THE GENDER SYSTEM AND INTERACTION , 1999 .

[41]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  Deindividuation and the self-regulation of behavior. , 1989 .